Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[goldchow]

How so very refreshing to read these last few posts, thank you Steve.Moosemum LizT and those who obviously feel the same.

Edited March 4, 2011 by goldchow

[Bullbreedlover]

A couple of weeks ago I went to a professional training session which had nothing to do with dogs, but everything to do with creative thinking. And one of the things the teacher said which really stuck in my mind was the importance of questioning our assumptions; putting the things we think we know to the test to see if they are valid opinions or just something we think we know because we just know, or learned a long time ago, or was told by someone or whatever. So I decided it was an interesting approach to thinking (bear with me, I have a point) and I would make use of it.

Because rescue is one of the things I do, and one of the things which takes up huge amounts of my time, I bent my new thinking tool onto rescue and dogs in general.

And one of the questions I asked myself was about the breeders good (mostly) vs puppy farmers/backyard breeders (bad) issue. Well, I still think puppy farms are not a good thing in general but I'm no longer willing to condemn and since I know some good breeders I'm still thinking that ethical breeders are probably a good thing, although possibly their own worst enemies. However, I started to think about the reason why puppy farmers are making so much money and why it's seen as such a bad thing for good breeders to make a profit.

So one of the questions I'm asking myself is related to Steve's point above. Why is it such a desirable thing for good breeders to breed less and less and have fewer and fewer dogs? Why shouldn't good breeders breed pretty, well-tempered, healthy dogs with the intention that most of them will be family pets? That doesn't mean that they're not also working to improve the breed, it might even make it easier since they don't have to wait years between litters to see what they're getting.

Puppy farmers make profits because people want pets. I'm sure most people would prefer healthy, well-tempered pets, which breeders are in a position to offer them. And although I can admire the persistance of people willing to wait two years for their desired breeder to produce a litter; I don't blame people who would like to live with a dog sometime before that and go elsewhere to find one, I'm not that patient either. Is the measure of a good owner really someone heroic enough to swim oceans, slay dragons, rescue maidens and generally go to heroic measures to prove their worth to own a dog (I'm looking at some rescue groups I know as well saying this)? Or could being generally responsible, fond of dogs, mostly sane and somewhat financially beforehand enough?

Is conformation showing the only way to judge the rightness of dogs? Working dogs keep working happily without being shown; surely a line of sane, happy, pets is as desirable as a line of title show dogs?

I don't really know the answers but I keep thinking that there is a real disconnect between the reality (people happily paying big sums of money for sad puppy shop puppies) on the one hand and breeders being sidelined because the concept of what constitutes ethical is being so narrowly and tightly defined.

I don't think this is an animal rights agenda (apologies to the more paranoid out there :D, I suspect it's all part our Western culture's increasing discomfort with laissez-faire approaches and an increasing desire to define, control and regulate just about everything. The reasons for that will be the subject of my next lecture for those of you still awake.

There are many many good breeders out there Aphra who do not breed often. Many of these breeders are now down sizing because of various other commitments in life.

It doesnt make them less of a breeder because they do not own x amount of dogs. The gene pool in alot of breeds these days is quite extensive and now with adding frozen semen it is almost endless.

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Edited March 4, 2011 by stonebridge

[jacqui835]

How so very refreshing to read these last few posts, thank you Steve.Moosemum LizT and those who obviously feel the same.

Makes me feel like there's hope for pedigree dogs after all...

[Steve]

definitely 100% purebred breeders on the whole should be breeding to the standard when they can and it doesnt mean they have to compromise on health.

The one thing that makes a purebred dog different to any other dog is that we can say what its going to look like -example a lab x poodle can have 69 different coat combinations a purebred only has one. We can therefore predict that if I dont want to live with a dog which requires huge amounts of grooming which breeds should be eliminated if both the dog and myself are going to have a greater chance at living happily ever after.

If we let that slip and dont select for the standard - the phenotype or the way the dog looks and the way the breed typically behaves then we will - over several generations loose that.

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed will be heroes in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Steve

[Steve]

A couple of weeks ago I went to a professional training session which had nothing to do with dogs, but everything to do with creative thinking. And one of the things the teacher said which really stuck in my mind was the importance of questioning our assumptions; putting the things we think we know to the test to see if they are valid opinions or just something we think we know because we just know, or learned a long time ago, or was told by someone or whatever. So I decided it was an interesting approach to thinking (bear with me, I have a point) and I would make use of it.

Because rescue is one of the things I do, and one of the things which takes up huge amounts of my time, I bent my new thinking tool onto rescue and dogs in general.

And one of the questions I asked myself was about the breeders good (mostly) vs puppy farmers/backyard breeders (bad) issue. Well, I still think puppy farms are not a good thing in general but I'm no longer willing to condemn and since I know some good breeders I'm still thinking that ethical breeders are probably a good thing, although possibly their own worst enemies. However, I started to think about the reason why puppy farmers are making so much money and why it's seen as such a bad thing for good breeders to make a profit.

So one of the questions I'm asking myself is related to Steve's point above. Why is it such a desirable thing for good breeders to breed less and less and have fewer and fewer dogs? Why shouldn't good breeders breed pretty, well-tempered, healthy dogs with the intention that most of them will be family pets? That doesn't mean that they're not also working to improve the breed, it might even make it easier since they don't have to wait years between litters to see what they're getting.

Puppy farmers make profits because people want pets. I'm sure most people would prefer healthy, well-tempered pets, which breeders are in a position to offer them. And although I can admire the persistance of people willing to wait two years for their desired breeder to produce a litter; I don't blame people who would like to live with a dog sometime before that and go elsewhere to find one, I'm not that patient either. Is the measure of a good owner really someone heroic enough to swim oceans, slay dragons, rescue maidens and generally go to heroic measures to prove their worth to own a dog (I'm looking at some rescue groups I know as well saying this)? Or could being generally responsible, fond of dogs, mostly sane and somewhat financially beforehand enough?

Is conformation showing the only way to judge the rightness of dogs? Working dogs keep working happily without being shown; surely a line of sane, happy, pets is as desirable as a line of title show dogs?

I don't really know the answers but I keep thinking that there is a real disconnect between the reality (people happily paying big sums of money for sad puppy shop puppies) on the one hand and breeders being sidelined because the concept of what constitutes ethical is being so narrowly and tightly defined.

I don't think this is an animal rights agenda (apologies to the more paranoid out there , I suspect it's all part our Western culture's increasing discomfort with laissez-faire approaches and an increasing desire to define, control and regulate just about everything. The reasons for that will be the subject of my next lecture for those of you still awake.

There are many many good breeders out there Aphra who do not breed often. Many of these breeders are now down sizing because of various other commitments in life.

It doesnt make them less of a breeder because they do not own x amount of dogs. The gene pool in alot of breeds these days is quite extensive and now with adding frozen semen it is almost endless.

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Of course it doesnt make them less of a breeder because they dont own X amount of dogs - but itdoesnt make them automatically better either and thats exactly how having less is promoted.

Who is to say that breeding 100 champions in one persons breeding career is better than placing 100 healthy happy pet puppies who are good examples of the breed.

Who is to say the pet puppy couldnt be shown and win or that the champion isnt well suited as a pet? Who is to say that when someone runs a dog around a ring in front of a limited audience that its is a better judgement on how the dog looks and moves than the one that walks on a lead around a city ?

[Gayle.]

Just a comment (or open-ended question) on breeders and showing.

The show judges judge to their interpretation of the standard. The judges don't own or breed all of the breeds they judge, although they may own and breed a few. So on a vast number of breeds, they are knowledgeable about the standard but judge to their interpretation, wthout having the intimate knowledge of the breed that a breeder has.

How is a judges interpretation more valid than the interpretation of a long-time breeder who's owned, lived with, studied and recorded data about the breed for generations?

[Bullbreedlover]

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed is a hero in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed is a hero in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

Surely a free whelping bitch is better for the breed.

Maybe I have misunderstood but are you saying free whelping bitches are not a priority in a breed?

I find it very concerning that some breeds need human intervention in order to procreate. that means if humans are not around the breed becomes extinct and I also think this gives animal rights people ammunition/

British Bulldogs today look a lot different than when the breed was first around so who is to say this modern shape is better for the breed than the original shape?

[shortstep]

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards.

I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard.

The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value.

Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

[Bullbreedlover]

Just a comment (or open-ended question) on breeders and showing.

The show judges judge to their interpretation of the standard. The judges don't own or breed all of the breeds they judge, although they may own and breed a few. So on a vast number of breeds, they are knowledgeable about the standard but judge to their interpretation, wthout having the intimate knowledge of the breed that a breeder has.

How is a judges interpretation more valid than the interpretation of a long-time breeder who's owned, lived with, studied and recorded data about the breed for generations?

GK

Interpretation of the Standard is what it is all about. That is why there are many shows with many judges. Not every judges opinion is going to be the right one according to who is on the end of the lead. It is one of those things that showies have to live with. If every judge put up the same dog day in and day out then their wouldnt be many people showing. Many judges are fault judges and can not see past that. But others will forsake small faults (according to the standards) and judge accordingly. You are trying to find the best dog which conforms to your interpretation of the standard.

Through good mentoring and guidance whilst becoming a judge and a person having a good eye for a nice dog you have every chance that you will become a respected judge.

Many breeders have differing views on their standards for the dogs they own. This s why we have differing dogs within the breeds. Who is to say that the long time breeder is actually going down the right path? Seriously this does happen sometimes.

[Steve]

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed is a hero in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

But they dont want a free whelper for themselves they want a free whelper because they believe its in the best interests of the breed.

Why is the discussion back on the money? How do you know that's all a breeder is going after ? Some maybe but lots of them are going after goals which they feel are just as important and valid as yours are to you. Why cant a breeder who breeds but doesnt show their dog not be capable of breeding structurally sound healthy dogs ?

It is the personal definition of for the sake of the breed which is variable but if a person who breeds dogs primarily for the show ring wants the benefit of the doubt and be seen to be caring about the rest of the dog and not just how it looks then they will need to do the same for others.

If you want someone to believe you are caring as much for the dogs and the breed as you are for winning then why is it so difficult for you to be able to do the same for them?

[Bullbreedlover]

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards.

I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard.

The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value.

Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

Dont be sorry for me shortstep

Funny thing is I am all for breeding to the standard. Standards were written up with form and function in mind. It is the breeders who have changed the dogs and then wanted to change standards to suit the dogs they were breeding.

Standards werent just written up for fun you know

I dont think poorly of a million working border collies. The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet?

I doubt you will be fighting for my rights Shortstep. I wouldnt want you to.

I actually have alot of respect for certain people and none for others. Is that not OK?

[Steve]

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards.

I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard.

The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value.

Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

Dont be sorry for me shortstep

Funny thing is I am all for breeding to the standard. Standards were written up with form and function in mind. It is the breeders who have changed the dogs and then wanted to change standards to suit the dogs they were breeding.

Standards werent just written up for fun you know

I dont think poorly of a million working border collies. The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet?

I doubt you will be fighting for my rights Shortstep. I wouldnt want you to.

I actually have alot of respect for certain people and none for others. Is that not OK?

Yeah but who's interpretation of the standard bought the breed to a point where it cant reproduce without help?

[shortstep]

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed is a hero in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

Surely a free whelping bitch is better for the breed.

Maybe I have misunderstood but are you saying free whelping bitches are not a priority in a breed?

I find it very concerning that some breeds need human intervention in order to procreate. that means if humans are not around the breed becomes extinct and I also think this gives animal rights people ammunition/

British Bulldogs today look a lot different than when the breed was first around so who is to say this modern shape is better for the breed than the original shape?

I do not want to talk about a breed I know little about.

But any breed of dog or any animal for that matter, that can not free whelp due to anotomical extremes is not fit for function and this needs to be change. If these anotomical extremes are what makes the dogs look like that breed, then a total reshuffle of this breed needs to happen, something has gone very far off track.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is.

It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE.

If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together?

No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do.

example x 2

Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed is a hero in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

Surely a free whelping bitch is better for the breed.

Maybe I have misunderstood but are you saying free whelping bitches are not a priority in a breed?

I find it very concerning that some breeds need human intervention in order to procreate. that means if humans are not around the breed becomes extinct and I also think this gives animal rights people ammunition/

British Bulldogs today look a lot different than when the breed was first around so who is to say this modern shape is better for the breed than the original shape?

I do not want to talk about a breed I know little about.

But any breed of dog or any animal for that matter, that can not free whelp due to anotomical extremes is not fit for function and this needs to be change. If these anotomical extremes are what makes the dogs look like that breed, then a total reshuffle of this breed needs to happen, something has gone very far off track.

My thoughts exactly.

[shortstep]

The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet?

Well all I can say is close to a million working border collie dog owners and breeders disagree with you.

Get my drift yet? That seems like such a not nice thing to say to someone.

[Bullbreedlover]

I do not want to talk about a breed I know little about.

But any breed of dog or any animal for that matter, that can not free whelp due to anotomical extremes is not fit for function and this needs to be change. If these anotomical extremes are what makes the dogs look like that breed, then a total reshuffle of this breed needs to happen, something has gone very far off track.

Well bugger me shortstep. You say any animal.

How about a human giving birth.

I had to have a caesarian when I gave birth to my daughter because I didnt have a wide enough pelvic area to give birth to her naturally. Any more children and they would of had to be born caesar as well.

She in turn gave birth to her daughter naturally.

Does this mean I am not fit for function?

Thousands upon thousands of humans either can not conceive naturally or give birth naturally. Some people just shouldnt breed in the first place. Some people have severe disformaties yet they still have children.

Edited March 4, 2011 by stonebridge

[Steve]

I do not want to talk about a breed I know little about.

But any breed of dog or any animal for that matter, that can not free whelp due to anotomical extremes is not fit for function and this needs to be change. If these anotomical extremes are what makes the dogs look like that breed, then a total reshuffle of this breed needs to happen, something has gone very far off track.

Well bugger me shortstep. You say any animal.

How about a human giving birth.

I had to have a caesarian when I gave birth to my daughter because I didnt have a wide enough pelvic area to give birth to her naturally. Any more children and they would of had to be born caesar as well.

She in turn gave birth to her daughter naturally.

Does this mean I am not fit for function?

Thousands upon thousands of humans either can not conceive naturally or give birth naturally. Some people just shouldnt breed in the first place. Some people have severe disformaties yet they still have children.

What? Surely you're joking right?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

stonebridge that is disingenuous of you.

Humans as a breed can procreate naturally however some can't.

Some breeds of animals cannot mate nor freely birth, this is a problem throughout the breed which makes them not fit for purpose

[Bullbreedlover]

Yeah but who's interpretation of the standard bought the breed to a point where it cant reproduce without help?

They can reproduce without help Steve.

Breeders choose to assist because of the heaviness of structure within the breed.

Those are my final words on this matter.